Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall are proving reliably pro-gun with their support today of a narrowly failed amendment that would have allowed holders of concealed-carry permits to transport their hidden pistols across state lines.

The amendment failed by a 58-39 vote, so the two Democrats’ support was significant.

Only two months ago Bennet and Udall supported the passage of a new law that allows concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons in national parks.

The Denver Post editorial board was opposed to the new national parks law and though we didn’t sound off on this newest concealed-carry change, we didn’t support it and would have argued against it if the measure had proceeded.

Our state’s law seems prudent to us, and we would have resisted the federal change that would have usurped it.

If the so-called Thune amendment (named for Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who sponsored the change) had passed, a concealed-carry owner from a state with less-vigorous requirements could have legally carried a hidden gun in Colorado.

Equally important to us is the issue of states’ rights. As Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., told fellow senators, “If you go down this road, then you create a precedent.”

Meaning, future states’ rights issues could have been weakened.

But in Colorado, being wimpy on guns is not a good idea for statewide office holders. And Bennet and Udall have gotten that message.

Full disclosure: I support legal gun ownership, own guns and enjoy shooting at things like paper targets and sporting clays. I also have no problem with Colorado’s concealed-carry permit regulations, and buy the argument that those who go to the trouble to gain the permit here are overwhelmingly law-abiding.

But because of the states’ rights issue, I argue that our senators have let us down.

As you’ll see in the senators’ prepared statements, they will argue that because Colorado agrees to recognize the concealed-carry permits of some other states, in return for the other states’ mirroring the favor, the Thune amendment seemed acceptable.

But that’s a red herring, because under the reciprocity compact, Colorado lawmakers still have the power to decide which states they wish to accept.

The senators:

“Since 2003, Colorado has had a relatively relaxed reciprocity statute recognizing the conceal-carry permits of twenty seven other states,” Udall said. “Our experience over the last six years does not lead me to conclude that passage of this amendment would raise the risk of unlawful gun smuggling or other criminal acts. It allows Coloradans to travel elsewhere once they have obtained a concealed permit in our state. It does not encourage irresponsible behavior or absolve anyone from criminal prosecution in Colorado if they use a gun in the commission of a crime.”

Bennet: “In Colorado, law-abiding gun owners have the right to apply for and receive a concealed carry permit. Colorado already recognizes the concealed carry permits from a majority of states, and generally grants reciprocity to states that recognize the permits of Colorado gun owners. Any concealed carry permit holder from another state must follow our criminal statutes, and that would have remained the law if the Thune amendment had passed.”

Update: Udall’s office points out that some of the states in the reciprocity compact already have weaker restrictions than Colorado, such waiving criminal background checks. Point taken. But again, Colorado has the right to deny those states, should it wish to. If Thune had passed, that right would have been taken away.

Update 7/23/2009: The Colorado Bureau of Investigation, citing this section of the concealed-carry law that deals with reciprocity with other states, complicates my understanding of the states’ rights issue. Colorado would have to change its statute in order to give it the right to disengage with states whose concealed-carry requirements it found lacking.

Colorado still could do so, however, whereas if Thune had become law, the state would have been locked in by federal law.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.